User talk:Coltsfan

Hi, I'm HalfdanRagnarsson, and this concerns your undoing of my edit on the page about the Battle of Gaugamela (no hard feelings). I'd added Diodorus Siculus' account of the Persian rout - it was important, as he admitted that Darius did not flee at first sight but was forced to because of the flight of the guards, thus corroborating (to an extent) the Astronomical Diary's account of Darius' army being demoralized. I did use a reliable source, livius.org (a Dutch historian's blog, perfectly WP:RS) - you will find it cited all over wiki history articles. However, you said that it was not reliable. Could you articulate why, and can I re-insert that part? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HalfdanRagnarsson:, please read WP:USERG. So no, that source is not, by any means, realiable. But fine, keep it there. I also advice you to use sources suchs "i heard from a guy in a bar". Just as reliable as this "blog". Cheers. Coltsfan (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: - It is used quite often, but if you say there is a problem, I will not use that source. But it is an accepted fact that Diodorus gives this description of the battle. How about these translations?^[1][2][3] HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@HalfdanRagnarsson: the preference is for academic sources (books, essays, all that good stuff). Journalistic sources in a historical article is not always accurate. Blogs and websites, even those maintained by historians, should not be taken at face value (due mainly to the lack of peer-reviewing). And that article already have sources like that, which is not so good. I recommend that you read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Coltsfan (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: - Yes, I am not pressing Livius any further. I am talking about these translations - ^[4][5][6] was it all right that I used them? Thanks, HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pure OR, I've removed and warned. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The judicial process of assassination attempt of an incumbent process is a relevant information. Please undo the reversal of my edit. Ppt2003 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello there friend. In the link I posted as reference, you have to click in "Listar partidos em formação", there is no direct link o it, so I posted this one Click in "Listar partidos em formação" here. There is a List of all parties in process of approval. All the parties there are listes as "Abreviation" - "Party name". In recent changes in parties permission, they can now choose words as abbreviations, or to not take official abreviation at all. Till some years ago, all parties should have "Party" in it's name, this also changed. Some examples are the parties like "Podemos", "Republicanos", "Cidadania" etc, as you can see here Brazilian exixting Political Parties. They changed their official abbreviation to complete words. The Aliança pelo Brasil asked for "ALIANÇA" as "official abbreviation". Also, we do not exacty use the word abbreviation, which would be "Abreviação" in portuguese, we use "Sigla", that can be either a word or the initial letters Paladinum2 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

My talk page is not the place to discuss an article's content. Coltsfan (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is about your removal of the word 'decisive' from the infobox. Unlike what you say, the term is not being phased out and there is still a raging debate going on about it. The current guidelines tell you to avoid it where it only where it might be disputable or controversial. On all vital articles where the use of result descriptions is justified (e.g. Gaugamela and the descriptions on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War), a talk page discussion must take place (in this case, the tagline explicitly states that). It is how several such article disputes have been resolved - in some cases, removal, in some cases, retention. Due to 3R, I cannot repair the damage until half a day more, so I have a request to you - when it is restored, please don't go out and undo it again; open a discussion on the talk page and get a consensus for your views. As for my earlier reversal of Chewings72's edits, that was due to a misunderstanding he had - he acknowledged it. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that you yourself have used such descriptive terms in multiple circumstances, as here - . HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

HalfdanRagnarsson, whenever these words can be removed from the articles, they have been. I recall very few times that that words like "decisive" are maintained in the articles. Not only because of WP:MOS, but it's also a form of WP:WEASEL. For now, it's disputed, but still a rule, and it must be respected. A lot of articles are losing these words, whenever possible. A broader discussion can be made, but even in the most simple of aspects, like WP:CHALLENGE, there are no source in the text to support that claim.

And no, that diff of yours just show the opposite, actually. I'm, again, over there, removing that word and other changes made without sources by that user. Coltsfan (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe all your concerns can be addressed. No, those words are not removed "whenever they can", they are removed in case of:

• Ambiguity about the result,
• If they seem out of place,
• WWII articles, for which there was a separate settlement.

Most articles about truly decisive battles (apart from WWII) do have a decisive tag in the infobox. Coming to the other points - WP:MOS explicitly tells you not to change styles without a good reason(and by implication, discussion), especially if it disturbs uniformity in the article - which your edit did, as a large part of the present article is devoted to emphasizing that the battle was decisive. "Decisive" is a weasel word only if it is debatable. Gaugamela is certainly not. This brings us to your last point. Half the citations in the article mention that the battle was decisive. But if you desire, I will add this one^[1] too. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

HalfdanRagnarsson, do you have a better source? This one looks a bit odd. This is one of the most researched battles in history, finding WP:SCHOLARSHIP shouldn't be difficult. But like i told you, WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX is clear: "terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes". Articles like Bunker Hill, Stalingrad or Gettysburg had the "decisive" removed, for that very same reason, and there was no discussion on these articles, the rules were just followed bluntly. Turning points of wars are difficult to pinpoint, so to claim a "decisive" victory was gained, well, it's not for wikipedia to say, that's WP:OR. So you need far better sources than iranicaonline.org. And this shouldn't be a two men discussion. I suggest you find better sources and use the talk page. If people people agree with you or no one care to answer after a time, you can re add that info, with the proper sources. Coltsfan (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've done that. I still believe you shouldn't have removed decisive, but I'll give the talk page some time. (Remember, you shouldn't be the only dissenting voice.)

Just a few final notes. "Decisive" isn't OR if the battle was certainly so, e.g. Waterloo, Pydna and the US capture of Baghdad. Many such articles, apart from those, maintain the word. As for the examples you gave, Bunker Hill was certainly not decisive; Gettysburg's decisiveness is uncertain(the article itself says so, with a citation to back it). Stalingrad is a WWII article - I've already explained that. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

HalfdanRagnarsson, I still think i was right, cuz i was following what the rules say. You have the WP:BURDEN here, according to the rules. Anyway, i left my opinion there in the discussion, now i'll let other weigh in on it. Coltsfan (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Coltsfan, I think I've come up with an amicable solution to the whole problem. I've simply added a discussion tag next to the field, with a link to our discussion. This will soon bring in editorial opinion in favour of either retention or deletion, to resolve the issue.

PS - Don't take our long dispute on my talk page personally; I was just explaining my position. You're a good editor HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

HalfdanRagnarsson, I don't know if it will help, most tend to ignore warnings such as those. I still think asking for arbitration would be better. But, you do you, i suppose. Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of it, but the rules seem to imply that it was only to be used if other methods of resolution failed. Given that the dispute is not yet intractable, I chose to go by this route; arbitration need not be used unless this fails. Maybe give it a month. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 12:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I get extremely cautious and - I admit freely - suspicious after this. Especially the edits on the sandbox gives me shivers. The Banner talk 17:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FYI. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let's parse your edit summary and see if we can make any sense of it.

• and you don't remove other people's opinions or positions without questioning the merit of the discussion;

  Huh? Whose opinions or positions were removed?

• if you think the topic is not worthy of discussing

  Huh? Who said the topic is not worthy of discussing? I in fact already participated in discussing it.

• then delete the whole thing not just the opinion you don't agree with

  Again, who deleted anything?

Never mind that you are edit-warring on that page, you need to self-revert because you have apparently completely misunderstood what you were reverting. A heading was inserted. NOTHING WAS REMOVED. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I STAND SELF-CORRECTED. I didn't see that you added a new comment at the same time as removing the heading, so I inadvertently removed that comment when I reverted the heading removal. So self-revert and then re-add your comment. Not a big deal. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, It's ok. I'll assume good faith and assume it was just a mistake. Still, no need to self-revert. The section title is still there, as it was before. I just re-added my comment that was removed. just don't go rushing to press the "undo" button without actually checking out what is being removed. It happens. Coltsfan (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I misread the situation, not once but twice. My embarrassed apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, no problemo friendo. Coltsfan (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Daveout(talk) 01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you have created a citation error: Cite error: The named reference Lentz was invoked but never defined The article has been migrated to sfn citation. Ruedi33a (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Coltsfan (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You have ignored the clean sfn structure. This citation was and is very imprecise: Zamoyski 2005, p. 536 — note this includes deaths of prisoners during captivity. The captivity of the French soldiers did not end in 1812 with the end of the Russian campaign. This number should not be usedRuedi33a (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Not quite. It isn't a matter of one author is right and the other is wrong. Different researchers find different results, but the sources that are currently backing those numbers, are also being used in multiple other articles, and it has been so for years at this point. Now, if you claim that these numbers are "imprecise", you gonna have to find a direct source that mentions that, otherwise is just your opinion based on the opinion of author X or Y. Coltsfan (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for making the change to Michelle Bolsonaro page. I noticed in her personal life section, her marriage date is still noted as 2013, so I just wanted to bring that to your attention also. Didn’t want to make the change since I don’t have any sources. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spf121188: change done! Coltsfan (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Coltsfan,

I am curious as to why you do not consider the changes I made to the Thylacine article justifiable. I believe the edits made were constructive. I await your reply.

Chumzwumz68 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chumzwumz68: Thylacine is a featured article,meaning the quality of its content was voted and approved by the community as a whole. And you are making changes to the lead section, no less. Why change those words? It makes no sense. The current vocab is appropriate and the lead section is well written. No need for a change, unless there is something inaccurate there. Coltsfan (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what gives you that idea? By the way, re your other tag, yes, this four-hour-old article does not yet have a lede. I would not have guessed that. Thank you for telling me.

I take it NPP has fully embraced automated tagging. You're the third so far.Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Coltsfan. Thank you for your interest in the Battle of Gettysburg. I noticed that you changed some information in the InfoBox "information on casualties was removed cuz it had no sources". Per the MOS "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere". See MOS here. I believe that person that put the information in the InfoBox has written numerous articles about the American Civil War, and discussed the relevant figures in the text. I recommend that you revert your edit. TwoScars (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@TwoScars:, not quite. First, if you look at the section "Casualties" you will see that there are quite a few data regarding the number of casualties, and the figures vary a lot. Second, and most importantly, the numbers on the infobox don't match the sources (at least, not at first glance). Busey and Martin, for instance, list the confederate KIA to be around 3k, approaching 4k. The numbers do match the second source, however, the book itself, The War of the Rebellion, states that those numbers could quite inaccurate and, thus, it's doubtful that they should be taken at face value. So, with the numbers varying greatly between sources, why those in particular were singled out? I went to the talk page and all i found is users discussing and disagreeing about what numbers to use. If there was a consensus that i missed regarding those numbers being the most accurate (according to official historiography of the battle), ok, then i yield, but i couldn't find anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, actually. Coltsfan (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue too much, and I won't revert anything myself. Just consider this: What I liked about the previous version is that it had the number reported (the low numbers), and then estimates that are probably more accurate. After your change, it is using estimates as if they are "official". The 20,451 matches Footnote 9. Without both reported and estimates in the InfoBox, someone may eventually replace the estimated (and probably more accurate) numbers with the reported numbers. TwoScars (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@TwoScars: well, so do i, i'm not gonna start a EW if someone reverts that. I just think that a change like this, specially in a featured article, should be done after discussion, with a consensus, which is the opposite here. whenever the topic was discussed, it always brought further confusion. i'll leave it as it is. if someone wants to revert it, it's fine, i'll just make a case in the talk page. Coltsfan (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello I would like to know why Tupak Shakur's photo in his biography is the most blurry photo ever seen also the thing that surprises me is that every clear picture that is uploaded removed by editors immediately. In reality the picture is so bad that cannot attract readers Fery Hury (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The terms of presidents & vice presidents of Brazil end/begin at midnight. Thus the reason for different dates. PS - The last discussion I attended, the consensus was to use those (for example: 31 Dec end dates) dates. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited João Figueiredo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARENA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I did read the source. What it says is nothing like the garbage you've restored. Unless you're saying that the given source is not the real source? TooManyFingers (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

First, tone down. Show some respect. Second, the source back the numbers that are on article. If you want new numbers, add new sources WP:V. Simple as that. Coltsfan (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

What you've done (I think) is to take the 4-month average of the numbers in the second graph. But 4-month average is not the topic, and is not what you wrote in the article. The topic (as you gave it in the article) is his popularity in May; the numbers that belong in the article are therefore only the May numbers. In other words, we need to stick to only the first graph in the article, and not take it upon ourselves to calculate averages for the months we were never talking about - especially not to calculate them without telling anyone and to not show the numbers that the source chose to show (which are the ones that begin with 28.6% good). TooManyFingers (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)